Do in-stream restoration structures enhance salmonid abundance? A meta-analysis

Whiteway, Sarah L.; Biron, Pascale M.; Zimmermann, André ZimmermannA.; Venter, Oscar; Grant, James W. A.

doi:10.1139/f10-021

Cited by 157 publications

(185 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

162

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The most thorough meta-analysis of habitat and biological response to instream structure placement was conducted by Whiteway et al (2010). They examined salmonid response to wood and other structure placement using data from 211 streams from 51 different studies and found significant improvements in physical habitat and positive and significant responses for most species of salmonid fishes (Fig.…”

Section: Biological Response To Wood Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3). In addition, Whiteway et al (2010) The strict data requirements of a formal meta-analysis often exclude the vast majority of studies done on wood placement (i.e., Stewart et al 2009;Whiteway et al 2010). Therefore, we conducted a simpler summary of results of papers that we located that examined fish response to wood placement to see how many reported positive, negative, or no fish response to wood placement.…”

Section: Biological Response To Wood Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

Roni

Beechie

Pess

et al. 2015

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

191

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite decades of research on wood in rivers, the addition of wood as a river restoration technique remains controversial. We reviewed the literature on natural and placed wood to shed light on areas of continued debate. Research on river ecology demonstrates that large woody debris has always been a natural part of most rivers systems. Although a few studies have reported high structural failure rates (>50%) of placed instream wood structures, most studies have shown relatively low failure rates (<20%) and that placed wood remains stable for several years, though long-term evaluations of placed wood are rare. The vast majority of studies on wood placement have reported improvements in physical habitat (e.g., increased pool frequency, cover, habitat diversity). Studies that have not reported improvements in physical habitat often found that watershed processes (e.g., sediment, hydrology, water quality) had not been addressed. Finally, most evaluations of fish response to wood placement have shown positive responses for salmonids, though few studies have looked at long-term watershed-scale responses or studied a wide range of species.Résumé : Malgré des décennies de recherche sur le bois dans les rivières, l'ajout de bois comme technique de restauration demeure controversé. Nous avons passé en revue la documentation sur le bois naturel et mis en place pour faire la lumière sur les enjeux qui font toujours l'objet de débat. La recherche en écologie fluviale démontre que les grands débris ligneux ont toujours constitué une composante naturelle de la plupart des réseaux fluviaux. Si quelques études ont signalé des taux élevés de défaillance structurale (>50 %) des structures en bois mises en place dans des cours d'eau, la plupart des études ont noté des taux de défaillance assez faibles (<20 %) et montré que le bois mis en place dans les cours d'eau demeurait stable pendant plusieurs années, les évaluations à long terme du bois mis en place étant toutefois rares. La grande majorité des études sur la mise en place de bois font état d'améliorations de l'habitat physique (p. ex. fréquences accrues de mouilles, couvert, diversité des habitats). Bon nombre des études n'ayant pas constaté d'amélioration de l'habitat physique notaient que les processus hydrographiques (p. ex. sédiments, hydrologie, qualité de l'eau) n'avaient pas été pris en considération. Enfin, si la plupart des évaluations de la réaction des poissons à la mise en place de bois ont relevé des réactions positives en ce qui concerne les salmonidés, peu d'études ont examiné les réactions à long terme à l'échelle du bassin versant ou étudié un grand éventail d'espèces. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

show abstract

Section: Biological Response To Wood Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biological Response To Wood Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

Roni

Beechie

Pess

et al. 2015

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

191

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, field experiments in the US Pacific Northwest have shown that trophic manipulations (e.g., nutrient additions or salmon carcass introductions) that boost the abundance of potential prey organisms also boost subsequent fish growth (7)(8)(9)(10). In contrast, restoration of physical habitats by creating pools or adding structures yields ambiguous evidence that such efforts increase subsequent fish abundance and biomass (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17). Although it may be premature to conclude from these studies that food availability and species interactions are more limiting to fish than the quality or quantity of the physical habitat, evidence is mounting that many habitat restoration activities are not always as effective in meeting stated goals and objectives as originally anticipated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a broader scientific foundation for river restoration: Columbia River food webs

Naiman

Alldredge

Beauchamp

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

120

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Well-functioning food webs are fundamental for sustaining rivers as ecosystems and maintaining associated aquatic and terrestrial communities. The current emphasis on restoring habitat structure-without explicitly considering food webs-has been less successful than hoped in terms of enhancing the status of targeted species and often overlooks important constraints on ecologically effective restoration. We identify three priority food web-related issues that potentially impede successful river restoration: uncertainty about habitat carrying capacity, proliferation of chemicals and contaminants, and emergence of hybrid food webs containing a mixture of native and invasive species. Additionally, there is the need to place these food web considerations in a broad temporal and spatial framework by understanding the consequences of altered nutrient, organic matter (energy), water, and thermal sources and flows, reconnecting critical habitats and their food webs, and restoring for changing environments. As an illustration, we discuss how the Columbia River Basin, site of one of the largest aquatic/riparian restoration programs in the United States, would benefit from implementing a food web perspective. A food web perspective for the Columbia River would complement ongoing approaches and enhance the ability to meet the vision and legal obligations of the US Endangered Species Act, the Northwest Power Act (Fish and Wildlife Program), and federal treaties with Northwest Indian Tribes while meeting fundamental needs for improved river management.

show abstract

“…27 Research about the effectiveness of habitat modification finds mixed results, 28,29 though some methods, such as in-stream log and boulder structures, appear to be broadly successful. 30 California river restoration projects have become increasingly common in the last thirty years. 31 Close to $50M has already been invested in river and watershed restoration in the Russian River basin since 1980, primarily to counteract the effects of logging and other land development.…”

Section: The Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water into Wine

Moran¹

2012

Boom

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water isn't free in California. For more than a century, water in the state has been trapped behind dams, funneled into pipelines, routed down canals, and pumped over mountains; it has been allocated, bought, and sold to such an extent that the natural and designed environments are now tightly interwoven. And even as this hybrid waterscape took shape in the twentieth century, new demands were being placed on it.By the 1970s, growth and development were no longer the only priorities for water use, and this change in social values was embodied by a wave of environmental laws and regulations. We asked to have our rivers, and drink them too. In many ways, the state is still learning to live with the full implications of this shift, and the challenge of reconciling tensions among legitimized water users poses a major challenge for California water design in the 21st century.Many examples of highly manipulated water environments exist across California. The expansive federal Central Valley Project and the slightly newer State Water Project make it possible to irrigate almonds near Bakersfield and to wash dishes in San Bernardino using rain that fell just miles from the Oregon border. This water passes through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, with its fragile complex of levees, channels, and pumps that is the heart of California's water capabilities and its water woes. Hundreds of smaller but substantial water projects scattered across the state must likewise balance competing demands for limited resources, but with fewer of the dizzying economic and political complexities of statewide systems. 1A close look at one place that has no choice but to reconcile human and ecological water uses, and perhaps to blur the distinction between the two, can help us understand some of the considerations that will frame water design and management decisions in California for decades to come.

show abstract

Do in-stream restoration structures enhance salmonid abundance? A meta-analysis

Cited by 157 publications

References 57 publications

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

Wood placement in river restoration: fact, fiction, and future direction

Developing a broader scientific foundation for river restoration: Columbia River food webs

Water into Wine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About